sexual aggression

[Katy]

*crickets*





Though Dan can't get all the blame. How many men do we have reading this thread and only Philo and Laird (neither of whom "fit in" with the philosophy preached here) have commented on it?

[PyroSylph]

*crickets*


Though Dan can't get all the blame. How many men do we have reading this thread and only Philo and Laird (neither of whom "fit in" with the philosophy preached here) have commented on it?

I'm not giving Dan all the blame. I am saying that as an admin here, Dan has a greater responsibility than the other members to address/correct it.

I am afraid the sound of the crickets will remain to be what is heard - a deafening trumpet proclaiming Genius Forum to be lost to it's intended purpose....or (sinister grin) is it?

[clyde]

. . . those who are not misogynistic should fly from their lofty realms and cast the moronic dolt down!

Pyro;

I do not dwell in a lofty realm, but one reason that I participate so infrequently on this forum is because of the misogynic views encouraged and expressed here, and the 'official' support such views enjoy. I sometimes feel that I'm reading the views of pre-pubescent adolescents who have yet to evolve from the 'women-haters club' or barely post-pubescent adolescents who are confused by their sexual drives and projections, and have yet to encounter real female human beings and enter healthy relationships.

clyde

[Unidian]

The statement made by Rhett is the perfect opportunity for some of the men in this forum to step up and admit where they stand. With all the denials of misogyny that abounds, the silence of its members when statements such as these are presented is deafening!

You are right. For my part, I stand 100% completely against it, and I think it was an incredibly offensive, disgusting statement made by a person with (as some have suggested) a severe inferiority complex. This is way beyond legitimate criticism of the female gender, and it indicates an acute need for psychological treatment. Knowing the ambiguities and pitfalls of the modern psychiatric system as I do, it is rare for me to say that someone needs treatment simply for thinking in an unusual manner. But this kind of thinking is not merely unusual - it is also monstrous, sick, and evil.

Everyone on this forum, including those who criticize the feminine dimension of culture and thought, should step up to explicitly denounce this, and it is quite true that those who remain silent will be counted as closeted sympathizers. I don't expect much from David and Kevin, but if nothing else, this is where Dan should step in and say "now wait a minute, that's going entirely too far." In my view, that is what men ought to do in such a situation. Is this forum about "masculinity" or isn't it? Part of being a man is having a sense of right and wrong and being willing to stand up for it.

I can only imagine the outrage of any rape victims who might have read Rhett's deplorable comments, and I feel ashamed that there still exist men in this world who would subject them to such humiliation. In my view, such men are accessories after the fact and should be treated as such - if not legally, then socially.

[DHodges]

So... women need men to come in and rescue them and protect them from these horrible comments?



???

[skipair]

First of all, let me make it completely clear I do not endorse rape in any way shape or form.

This is way beyond legitimate criticism of the female gender, and it indicates an acute need for psychological treatment.

I personally do not see this as a criticism of the female gender, so much as an observation worth considering for possible validity, just like every other observation.

Everyone on this forum, including those who criticize the feminine dimension of culture and thought, should step up to explicitly denounce this, and it is quite true that those who remain silent will be counted as closeted sympathizers.

Can you prove that at least some of the pain isn't from the socially induced guilt of sexual arrousal? Whether it's true or false, or to what degree it's either, I'm not really sure how anyone can prove. But as I mentioned in the sister thread, a woman's sexual arousal is highest when she has totally lost control, and in that sense there is a very fine line between rape and consensual sex. The trump card for me is whether or not it started consensual, or whether it was a "hit and run". The latter I think we all (including Rhett) agree is disgusting. But there is enough of a blurring of the lines given how feminine sexuality works to consider his claim.

I can only imagine the outrage of any rape victims who might have read Rhett's deplorable comments

I wouldn't doubt it. But the outrage might come from a hidden lie that at least some part of her was arroused, and that is an absolute NO-NO in terms of what is socially acceptable for a woman. There are many things that are true about women that you can never get a direct confirmation from verbally. Whether this is one of those things, I don't know, but I'm guessing it's contextual.

[David Quinn]

Regardless of whatever errors may or may not exist in Rhett's comments, they pale into utter insignificance compared to the moral outrage and mob-lynching mentality that is being displayed by a number of you. I'm referring specifically to Unidian (who is well-known for his love of leading mob-lynchings), Pyro (who no doubt goads him towards this behaviour), Philosophaster, and Victor (on a related thread).

In my view, freedom of thought and freedom of speech are sacrosanct. They are principles which need to be adhered to above all else, otherwise they begin to disappear very quickly. If we are going to start eating into these principles on the grounds of not liking what someone says, then we are quickly sliding down the slope towards Islamic fundamentalism. That is what the behaviour of the four of you remind me of - Islamic fundamentalists burning effigies in the street and chanting death to the Great Satan.

As for the question of whether I, as an administer, should be standing up to whatever errors occur in people's posts, if I started doing that I would have to respond to at least 90% of the posts that are written here, which simply isn't feasible. I have to pick and choose and, to be honest, I didn't find Rhett's comments all that controversial.

Although I don't fully agree with what Rhett says about rape, there is a lot of merit in his comments. The reality is, rape fantasies are the most common form of sexual fantasy entertained by women; most women are sexually turned on by dangerous, powerful men; most women do like to be seized and handled somewhat roughly in the act of sex (as per their rape fantasies), and women do get a lot of pleasure playing the victim card, which is what an event like being raped enables them to do.

This is not to say that the act of rape should be condoned, or that there aren't many painful aspects to being raped. But these psychological realities in women need to be acknowledged and addressed. It serves no purpose to sweep them under the carpet by indulging in moral outrage and mob emotionalism. Rhett is at least trying to address the issue, which cannot be said of the four of you.

So I have to disagree with your collective prognosis. In my view, the mob behaviour of the four of you does far more harm to the cause of free-thought and wisdom than anything that Rhett has ever said. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

-

[Ryan Rudolph]

DHodges wrote:

So... women need men to come in and rescue them and protect them from these horrible comments?.

Exactly, I had more, but Quinn just said everything I was going to say. I'll just add this -

There is a deep seated biological fear in men related to reacting emotionally to the idea of women being raped. First of all, there is the unconscious tendency for men to feel a women’s virginity/sexuality is of a godly order, and that she is weak and her purity is in need of protection. This is very deep. And then there is the tendency for men to fear the sexual outsider coming into the community and having his way with their women, and spreading his genes, over theirs.

So I agree with Quinn, the type of protectionist attitudes displayed here are far worse than Rhett’s comment. The type of emotional group think happening here is definitely an assault on reason.

[Rhett]

Just look at all that false quoting, indignation and finger pointing. Oh how quickly we see malicious rumour develop and turn into group politics.

Over time i have received sufficient evidence including the direct quote i gave about women and rape to say what i said. It needs to be remembered that due to women's near unconsciousness and their imported male thoughts, their instincts are not always easily spotted. Women's instincts are often countered by the masculine moral values that reside within them. Women are deeply fractured by their inner feminine instincts and the masculine ways they have absorbed. That is why statistics on whether women enjoyed rape or not, or on levels of infidelity between males and females, are not indicative of women's actual nature.


It is true for example that i have witnessed a surprising number of women that have given subtle but clear indication they would leave their partner for another man (but they would try them on for size first). Women categorise males quickly, placing them on a heirarchy, and any interest from a male placed higher on that heirarchy than her current partner will have appeal to her feminine instinct. But at the same time she acknowledges her dependency, so she is risk adverse. Plus, the male thoughts in her mind influence her towards monogamy. Women did not write "Till death do we part", but they sure love men saying it.

The female instinct is towards accepting and flowing with emotional drives, the male instinct is towards principles. Women at bottom hate rules and laws and morals and invisible structures seeing them as male impositions upon her instinctual preference for whatever suits her at the time.



I place women's values as follows: 1.Materialism 2.Man as partner 3.Sex 4.Children 5.Family 6.Friends.

The mighty dollar rules in the minds of women. A poor man better have potential for making money if he is to generate any interest; women know that a male that hooks up with a woman will instincively feel driven to make money, so potential means a lot. And as women tell us, "Shopping is better than sex". Dominant evolutionary forces naturally created this condition because without material support pre-historic woman would have died, and more recent woman would struggle to realise anything more than her bottom values.

Also interesting is how they can use their own number three value to achieve all of their values except the last. Women are thus sexually aggressive, though this often presents in small ways. It is no coincidence that a woman will walk past a male she is interested in, or bend over revealing her breasts, in the hope she will trigger desire in him. Women work by appearing to incidentally gain attention, that's all it often takes.

[Nick]

I think the knee jerk reaction by so many members is by far the most disturbing thing to be witnessed in this discussion. Whether you want to believe it or not, consensual sex shares the same fundamental basis as rape, which is a dominant/passive basis. With that said, to completely dismiss the idea that a woman might experience some pleasure while being raped, no matter how subtle, is a sure sign of mental blockage. And to think there aren't some cases where the trauma is magnified by the fact that society expects her to feel completely violated, even though deep down she might have enjoyed it, is just plain ignorant.

In fact, I think one of the main reasons society, especially women, expects that rape victims feel completely violated, even though her true feelings are contrary to that, is because they know that if the truth gets out about how so many women actually fantasize about being raped they would lose much of their innocent appeal that so many men are attracted to. Here's a discussion, between a daughter who was just raped and her mother, that illustrates the point I'm trying to make.

Daughter: (tearful and ashamed) Mommy, I was raped last night...

Mother: Oh my lord, are you alright?

Daughter: No mommy, I have no idea who did it, I'm so ashamed!

Mother: Don't be sweetie, terrible things like these can happen to anyone.

Daughter: I know mommy, but what makes it even worse is that even though I know I should feel angry and violated, part of me liked what happened to me.

Mother: Now listen to me, you never speak a word of that again, you are just confused and distraught. You were a victim and don't you ever forget it, whoever has done this to you shall pay the price in full! (what these words actually represent is her fear that if her husband and his friends find out that women enjoy aspects of rape, they may no longer be viewed as the beautiful angelic flowers they believe us to be now, no more gifts, no more house, no more leverage, they are at risk for being exposed as nothing more than dirty little whores) In other words, WOMAN is at stake!

Daughter bursts into tears feeling even more confused...

[Unidian]

These responses were completely predictable.

Dhodges,

So... women need men to come in and rescue them and protect them from these horrible comments?

Yeah, I know, I'm being the horrible misogynist by standing up for women who have been raped, because it sends the message that they need to be mollycoddled by men, etc, etc. I'm familiar with that line of thinking and I find it retarded. Women don't need me or any other man to speak up on their behalf. That does not mean that I shouldn't do so anyway.

It would indeed be misogynistic to suggest that women cannot get along in life without men standing up for them. They can do so and no doubt would if they had to. But why should they have to? Why should men feel hesitant to do what Nature has equipped them to do best - combine their own particular strengths with those of women?

It's only because this is the internet that you can try to turn the tables on me with such devices. In a real-life situation, both men and women ought to feel free to do what they are naturally equipped do best when remarks such as Rhett's are made. That being, in a woman's case, excoriate him verbally and socially, and in my particular case, kick the crap out of him or at least make it clear that any further such comments will result in that outcome.

Whether one is male or female, it is not wrong to stand up for others in the way one is best-equipped to do so, when other human beings are faced with the clear and present reality of evil.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for pulling the classic and oh-so-tired Genius Forum "you are the real misogynist" stunt instead of condemning Rhett's statements.

David,

You are a sick man. I knew you would be quick to come in and say "look at how hysterical you guys are getting, and that's the real problem." But it's not. My reaction in this thread is one of compassion, and the fact that you don't understand this is more extremely convincing evidence that you do have the condition with which you have been diagnosed.

Every time you or one of your fellow outpatients says something appalling, you react exactly the same way. You point to the people who criticize the offensive statement and accuse them of a "hysterical mob-lynching mentality" or the like. It does not occur to you that there is any validity to the complaints, because you lack empathy. You chalk this up to "enlightenment" and wear it as a badge, but you are a false teacher. In fact, you are a false teacher even more detestable than Adyashanti with his New Age tell-them-what-they-want-to-hear, money-grubbing ways, or even than Osho, who ran around high on nitrous oxide all day and owned 96 Rolls-Royces. Either of them is by far your superior. Why? Because they were not gifted with the intellect necessary to see anything really wrong with their typical animalistic behavior. You were, but because of your disorder, you have perverted that gift to the service of self-elevation. Instead of fighting your disorder tooth and nail as I and others have addressed our various psychological challenges, you have instead chosen to sell out to the Devil and make your own personal religion of your illness - thus avoiding all the hard work of becoming truly human by creating your own bizarre kingdom in which you are The Most Lofty One enjoying the self-satisfaction of preaching from on high. Worst of all, your disorder causes you to lack even the basic decency to at least give lip-service to compassion while chasing after your own aggrandizement. Adya and Osho at least do that, thereby ensuring that most of their unfortunate followers don't turn out to be the enormous egotists their gurus are. But you... look at what you are doing here. Behold Rhett, Doctor Frankenstein, for he is your creation.

And for these deadly sins of sloth and vanity, and the effects they cause (such as the pollution and sublimation of weak minds exemplified by Rhett), you will be held accountable by me, by true adherents of the Zen/Taoist tradition, and by Nature itself. I will even stand side-by-side with Victor to condemn you, because if anything exceeds the stench of his egotism, it is the suffocating odor of your own diseased self-importance.

You have been served.

[Philosophaster]

No matter the issue or remarks, the response of indignation is always the most "horrible" thing about the whole debacle, right?

LOL.

[Rhett]

Time for an anecdote, a very small piece of evidence that needs to be seen in that light.

I once had a girlfriend for about 8 months. At no time did we ever talk about, or did she ever express to me that she had rape fantasies or the like, or ask for rough sex, or cause sexual power games. So i can't say whether she had these or valued them or not. She would naturally have been heavily influenced by my nature to not value these, and probably not to express them either. She was well brought up and essentially normal, but that's not to say she didn't have some influences that interested me.

But she did tell me that a guy once grabbed her groin in a nightclub and she had an orgasm. She didn't place any significant emotional weight on the occasion, or speak poorly of him. She went silent fairly quickly. I could see the fracture in her between her feminine nature and imported male opinions. It was a special orgasm to her, given the way she mentioned it. It was clear that it ranked above all others. The guy in the nightclub most likely didn't even know that she had an orgasm.

[Dan Rowden]

I will address Rhett's statements in detail later. For now I will simply observe that the behaviour and responses of the women (that includes a couple of blokes) in this thread since I've been sleeping simply prove a point Kev, Dave and I have made a million times. Which point? You figure it out.

[Ataraxia]

It is true for example that i have witnessed a surprising number of women that have given subtle but clear indication they would leave their partner for another man (but they would try them on for size first).

It's fair to say many an average Aussie fella thinks like this too.

You only have to spend some time in any male dominated pub to hear similar not so subtle sentiments.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan, I am sorry that I have taken so long to respond, but I assure you that I have valid reasons for it. I will come back later tonight or tomorrow and reply to you in more detail.

There is zero need for such apologies. One thing I have always thought intolerable on message boards is people demanding replies in a time frame of their convenience and preference. It is stupendously egotistical.

I will start by addressing Jimbo's comment that I once bought a $3k handbag. I have never done it, and even if I had so much money that $3k was a drop in the bucket for me, I doubt I would do it, as a matter of principle.

I agree that you would not, from what I know of you. I don't know where Jimbo got that idea from. Maybe he was thinking of himself given the higher "feminine" score he got on a test once :)

[Unidian]

Philo,

No matter the issue or remarks, the response of indignation is always the most "horrible" thing about the whole debacle, right?

Yes, because anyone who reacts with empathy (particularly empathy for women) is not only a misogynist, but they are behaving in an "unenlightened," ignorant manner as well.

Schizoid personality disorder plus (or perhaps caused by) huge "mother" issues = David Quinn. Mix in a healthy dose of narcissism and you have his version of "enlightenment." That's the formula, go test it in a lab. Results are guaranteed, not that anyone would actually want to confirm this hypothesis by creating another one.

Dan,

For now I will simply observe that the behaviour and responses of the women (that includes a couple of blokes) in this thread since I've been sleeping simply prove a point Kev, Dave and I have made a million times. Which point? You figure it out.

If this refers to me in any way, I trust you know where you can ram it and how hard. If it doesn't, then you need to be specific about who you are referring to, and I also think you should explain (in detail) how and why you are using "women" as a term of abuse. I already know the "QRS" position, but I want to see you spell it out.

Furthermore, you might also want to mention why you didn't feel it was necessary to distance yourself from Rhett's statements in your post. "I will address them and discuss why Rhett is a crazy fool" would have been a much better promise.

This is not a boat you want to be on, Dan. Take my word for or don't, but I guarantee nothing good can come from treating this anything as but what it is.

[Unidian]

Nick,

I think the knee jerk reaction by so many members is by far the most disturbing thing to be witnessed in this discussion. Whether you want to believe it or not, consensual sex shares the same fundamental basis as rape, which is a dominant/passive basis.

Rape "shares the same fundamental basis" as consensual sex? Well, given that view, I guess it might be a plus that you have accepted the QRS perspective on women. It's for the best that people who hold such views have essentially zero chance of obtaining a relationship. Some woman is being saved a very lousy experience.

Daughter: (tearful and ashamed) Mommy, I was raped last night...

Mother: Oh my lord, are you alright?

Daughter: No mommy, I have no idea who did it, I'm so ashamed!

Mother: Don't be sweetie, terrible things like these can happen to anyone.

Daughter: I know mommy, but what makes it even worse is that even though I know I should feel angry and violated, part of me liked what happened to me.

Mother: Now listen to me, you never speak a word of that again, you are just confused and distraught. You were a victim and don't you ever forget it, whoever has done this to you shall pay the price in full! (what these words actually represent is her fear that if her husband and his friends find out that women enjoy aspects of rape, they may no longer be viewed as the beautiful angelic flowers they believe us to be now, no more gifts, no more house, no more leverage, they are at risk for being exposed as nothing more than dirty little whores) In other words, WOMAN is at stake!

Daughter bursts into tears feeling even more confused...

Undoubtedly you made this rubbish up. If you think any actual conversation about rape would be like this, you have a pitiful understanding of human psychology and you deserve to be the pathetic misogynist you apparently are.

This makes me ashamed that you agreed with my position in "Unemployment: Best Indicator of Integrity." Clearly there are exceptions to that rule, at least here at Genius Forum.

[Rhett]

I think the knee jerk reaction by so many members is by far the most disturbing thing to be witnessed in this discussion. Whether you want to believe it or not, consensual sex shares the same fundamental basis as rape, which is a dominant/passive basis. With that said, to completely dismiss the idea that a woman might experience some pleasure while being raped, no matter how subtle, is a sure sign of mental blockage. And to think there aren't some cases where the trauma is magnified by the fact that society expects her to feel completely violated, even though deep down she might have enjoyed it, is just plain ignorant.

As providers battling the dynamic and challenging outside world dominant evolutionary forces created men that enjoy challenge. Men enjoy setting goals and meeting them against the forces. This emotional orientation can't easily be turned on and off, so what better than to make their prize of animal consciousnes at the end of the day a challenge to get. First the emotional high of a conquest, then the unconsciousness they need to wind down.

Plus, if sex is given easily, then women lose most of their power. It is through being passive towards sex that women gain so much from men for it, such as materials, companionship, thoughts, direction, security, etc, which they would otherwise not get or net get anywhere near as much.

Thus it is intrinsic that women not appear to enjoy sex or rape in the minds of men, at least not enough for men to see the true case.

[Unidian]

So Rhett, if men started raping more often, it would be more consistent with their true nature and it would also serve to strip women of some of their society-warping power and mystique, right?

I just want to see how deep this insane rabbit-hole goes...

[Dan Rowden]

Nat,

Excuse me, but I'll treat it as I personally see it. My post didn't refer to you, actually, but talk to me like that and I will revise my thinking.

Where's that hysteria machine when I need it! This thread sure as hell needs it.

[Katy]

The herd behavior of Nat, Philo and...... Victor?
Yep, I can see that group getting together and deciding to go lynch someone who didn't completely deserve it.


I think this thread wins for most disturbing Genius thread ever.


Somewhere along the lines, I think you've lost the line between fantasy and reality, Rhett. Rape isn't about sex; it's about power. Having a violent sexual fantasy, and even engaging in BDSM is not the same as being forced to do those things.

[Rhett]

It is true for example that i have witnessed a surprising number of women that have given subtle but clear indication they would leave their partner for another man (but they would try them on for size first).

It's fair to say many an average Aussie fella thinks like this too.

You only have to spend some time in any male dominated pub to hear similar not so subtle sentiments.

Talking about being open to infidelity and actually being open to doing it are two things, especially with a few beers in their belly. Plus let's not forget how feminine most men are, especially those in pubs.

My illustration included numerous points about women bearing relation to the main topic of sexual aggression. I want to give a clear indication of women's inner sexual aggressiveness, because so many men are confused by women's outer passivity towards sex to think that women are not that interested in sex and therefore that men have to do a lot of things to get it.

[Rhett]

So Rhett, if men started raping more often, it would be more consistent with their true nature and it would also serve to strip women of some of their society-warping power and mystique, right?

I just want to see how deep this insane rabbit-hole goes...

No, men are happy with the degree of conquest they get, i think. They enjoy making it safe and predictable, too. I suspect desire for rough sex or rougher sex comes more from women than men.

The way to break down women's mystique and damage to men is to talk about it truthfully.

[Philosophaster]

Shame that the SA folks did their thing before this thread was kicking.